Education of Fielding Readers on "Tom Jones," The second part

Claiming narrative authority

The historian (to use Fielding’s terminology) immediately begins his quest to build reciprocity between the reader and himself in the first introductory chapter of Book I. He asserts that an author must regard himself as “someone who maintains the public. ordinary “(Fielding 29). . He extends this metaphor by stating that he will borrow from the ordinary public his habit of posting a ‘fee bill’ to avoid “offending his customers” (Fielding 30). The narrator will provide the reader with not just a “general invoice for [his] full entertainment “, but will also provide” particular invoices for each dish to be served “in the narrative.

The narrative style described here is one in which the historian is subservient to the reader. While this induces one to look benevolently at the historian, the sentiment does not last long. Maurice Johnson states:

Although the preface to a novel may itself be faked, it is usually intended to let the author speak for himself, preparing to lead his reader out of the “real” world into the mock world of his fiction. (Johnson 83)

It must be concluded that the historian is “pretending” in his characterization of himself as a guardian of an ordinary public, after having been confronted with the introduction to Book II. Now the previous social scale is reversed: the historian is “the founder of a new province of writing” in which he can “make what laws [he] please[s] “(Fielding 68). We, the former patrons of the ordinary public, are now his” subjects “and are” bound to believe in [his laws] and obey “(Fielding 68). But if” we comply with willingness and joy, “the historian assures us that he will only be concerned with our best interests (Fielding 69).

John Richetti asserts that this narrative authority “is supported, like the Hannover monarchy, by the narrative equivalent of the distribution of favors or patronage in exchange for the recognition of sovereignty” (Richetti 189). If we recognize the full authority of the historian, we will be rewarded with the means that the historian can give us: Words. He will use his ability to surprise and delight us, perhaps surprise and deceive us. He will sprinkle his narrative with “various similes, descriptions, and other poetic adornments” (Fielding 131). He:

it is based on an associated theory of ‘genres’ for established tones appropriate for various moods and modes: poetic elevation (pastoral and epic), moral elevation (sermon and essay), the ironic and satirical (various forms of satire). .. [will] parody or burlesque dominant genres or styles of earlier literary works. (Miller 268)

These ‘rewards’ are exhibited in the sublime description of Sophia, the “domestic government” that is executed “against the rules of Aristotle” (Fielding 71), the anecdote of King Pyrrhus (Fielding 132), the invocations to the muse from the historian Mnesis, Squire Western’s “whimsical adventure” (Fielding 734), Molly’s epic battle in the graveyard, the historian’s ‘slightly altered’ quotes, all the twists and turns of the plot, the mistaken identities and coincidences extraordinary, just to name a few. Although Fielding refers to these “ornaments” as mere “ornamental parts of [his] work “, includes them to” refresh the mind “whenever boredom and / or sleep take over the reader (Fielding 131).

Eric Rothstein describes Fielding (the narrator) as “a man always in control, limited only by voluntary limitations, needing no one’s approval” (Rothstein 100). I agree that the narrator is in full control of his narrative and that he is not bound by restrictions other than those he imposes on himself, but I don’t see how Rothstein can claim that Fielding does not need anyone’s approval. If this were true, why would you have so many conversations with your readers? Fielding, of course, is very cleverly using his rhetoric to manipulate his readers, but he is trying to persuade us to agree with him, not telling us what to think and believe. In that sense, you need to get the approval of your readers.

After reclaiming his authority as a historian, the narrator expands his writing style by illustrating the reasons for his preliminary chapters. Stating that these trials are “essentially necessary to [his] type of writing “(Fielding 181), the narrator cites” contrast, which runs through all works of creation “as the main function of his preliminary chapters (Fielding 183). Fielding uses the terms ‘serious and comic’ to show the difference between his prefaces and the narrative proper (Fielding 183), but since his prefaces are not always serious, a different terminology would be more applicable.

Thomas Lockwood applies the terms “matter and reflection” to the prefaces and narrative. He distinguishes the subject of a chapter as having “a definite psychological value” (Lockwood 227). The reflection is, of course, the narrator’s comments about it. So matter and reflection work together to point us to the direction the narrator wants us to take. Another set of terms that has been talked about is “position and perspective.”

In his article, James Vopat states that “the function of art is to define position and perspective, to provide the means to limit nature to make it meaningful” (Vopat 146). As a result, life “becomes more meaningful because it is manageable” (Vopat 146). This quality of “limiting nature” to make life more “manageable” can be discerned in the character of Tom Jones. Throughout most of the novel, Tom behaves by natural instinct. He is possessed of “wildness”, “wildness” and “lack of caution” (Fielding 122). Tom’s wildness is contrasted by Sophia, who is “perfectly educated” (Fielding 136). Taking Sophia as a model, Tom learns to “limit” his animal spirits, thus gaining control over his life. Sophia and Tom illustrate Fielding’s “belief in the existence of Order in the great framework of the universe and in the necessity of Order in the private soul” (Battestin 290). In the same way, Fielding presents us with many other contrasts to subtly manipulate us into adopting his view of proper behavior.

Bibliography

Battestin, Martin C. “Tom jones: The design argument “. The center of Augustus. Eds. Henry Knight Miller, Eric Rothstein, and GS Rousseau. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. 289-319.

Fielding, Henry. Tom Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Johnson, Maurice. Fielding’s art of fiction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961

Lockwood, Thomas. “Matter and Reflection in Tom jones. ” THE H 45.2 (1978): 226-35.

Miller, Henry Knight. “The voices of Henry Fielding: style in Tom jones. ” Eds. Henry Knight Miller, Eric Rothstein, and GS Rousseau. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. 262-288.

Richetti, John. “The Old Order and the New Mid-18th Century Novel: Narrative Authority in Fielding and Smollett”. 18th century fiction 2.3 (1990): 183-96.

Rothstein, Eric. “Virtues of authority in Tom jones. ” The 18th century: theory and interpretation 28.2 (1987): 99-126.

Vopat, James B. “Narrative Technique in Tom jones: The balance between art and nature “. Narrative technique magazine 4 (1974): 144-54.